1950s/60s TV Shows That Were Truly Ahead Of Their Time

[Mad Mac]

There are two kinds of dystopian movies.
The ones where there is no law and order
and the ones where there is too much law and order.

[James Y]

First time I saw The Omega Man, starring Charlton Heston as a kid, it kinda scared me, but when I saw it again a few years ago, it didn't scare me at all. But I still think it was better than the movie I Am Legend, starring Will Smith. Both movies are based on Richard Matheson's novel I Am Legend, but the book is superior to both movies.

Jim

[JD Spydo]

I've watched some more episodes of the old Sci Fi show "STARLOST". It was mainly broadcast in Canada in the early to mid 70s. But we had a local station here in KC that aired it. And when it got canceled a lot of people petitioned that local station to bring it back.

Walter Koenig who also played Mr. Chekov in the original Star Trek played a character named "Oro" and he did it well in that show. All of the episodes are available in Youtube.

Also that show I mentioned earlier "Space 1999" that starred Martin Landau has full episodes on Youtube as well. Shows that essentially flopped in the 60s/70s era were great shows compared to much of the stuff that is considered "prime time" now a days.

[bearrowland]

For the record, and the first time I've publicly admitted this, I had a Space 1999 lunchbox right around 1977

[JD Spydo]

For the record, and the first time I've publicly admitted this, I had a Space 1999 lunchbox right around 1977

Hey guy as obscure as that TV Show was and still is in some respects>> I bet an authentic, licensed lunchbox would probably be a great collector's piece at this time. I'm not into those types of collectibles but if I had a lunchbox with "Space 1999" logos and/or pictures on it I would sure hold on to it.

I bet some of these ardent Sci Fi collectors would drool over a piece like that.

When I had my financial trainwreck back in 2009 I had a garage sale to get rid of a lot of stuff I didn't want to put into storage. I put out all of my original series Star Trek Collectibles and books for sale >> I was rid of all of them except one book on Checkov by the noon hour>> and I fetched really good prices on all of it considering how fast I got rid of them ( and I priced them kind of high too)>> I was rid of almost all of it by noon of that day and there were at least 60 Star Trek items I put up for sale. Any collectible I had with Leonard Nimoy's ( Mr. Spock) went like 50 cent beer in a happy hour and not even one person tried to lowball me either. I was pleasantly surprised and I made more dollars on the Star Trek collectibles than I did all the other stuff I had for sale. And I sold over half of all the other items I had for sale that day. Maybe Sci Fi was hot then but there is always Sci Fi collectors.

Speaking of Sci Fi>> when did the original Doctor Who show start? I know it's been on for quite a while now. Also the original Dark Shadows collectibles I had did pretty well that day too.

[James Y]

As a kid, I always liked Night Gallery. And a few of the episodes were quite creepy. Those few were favorites, but one episode in particular I'm recalling right now was titled "The Doll." That one creeped me out as a kid. I don't think that episode is on YouTube. To this day, it was creepier than any other doll-related horror TV episode (or movie) I've ever seen. More than anything on TV today.

https://youtu.be/3LHmigtLo4k

Jim

[JD Spydo]

As a kid, I always liked Night Gallery. And a few of the episodes were quite creepy. Those few were favorites, but one episode in particular I'm recalling right now was titled "The Doll." That one creeped me out as a kid. I don't think that episode is on YouTube. To this day, it was creepier than any other doll-related horror TV episode (or movie) I've ever seen. More than anything on TV today.

Both Alfred Hitchcock and Rod Serling both were brought to the limelight in the 1960s. Both were geniuses and both are still loved to this very day. To this very day I can't really name one person who does horror or Science Fiction to the degree that those two guys did. Oh yeah Stephen King has sure made a name for himself but there is nobody I can think of that can be compared to Hitchcock and Serling.

Night Gallery was just overshadowed by the Twilight Zone which it shouldn't been because it was also a great show. But the networks and media for some strange reason were really critical of Night Galley and thus killed the popularity of it. For what reason I can't even guess.

Hitchcock and Serling were both in a league all their own>> their re-runs do better here in KC than most all of the new stuff and new movies. And since Stanley Kubrick died I really don't see anyone taking his place in the arts either. That's why I did this thread because there was just so much stuff done in the 60s and 70s I still think is better than most anything else available. My opinion to which I'm entitled

[James Y]

As a kid, I always liked Night Gallery. And a few of the episodes were quite creepy. Those few were favorites, but one episode in particular I'm recalling right now was titled "The Doll." That one creeped me out as a kid. I don't think that episode is on YouTube. To this day, it was creepier than any other doll-related horror TV episode (or movie) I've ever seen. More than anything on TV today.

Both Alfred Hitchcock and Rod Serling both were brought to the limelight in the 1960s. Both were geniuses and both are still loved to this very day. To this very day I can't really name one person who does horror or Science Fiction to the degree that those two guys did. Oh yeah Stephen King has sure made a name for himself but there is nobody I can think of that can be compared to Hitchcock and Serling.

Night Gallery was just overshadowed by the Twilight Zone which it shouldn't been because it was also a great show. But the networks and media for some strange reason were really critical of Night Galley and thus killed the popularity of it. For what reason I can't even guess.

Hitchcock and Serling were both in a league all their own>> their re-runs do better here in KC than most all of the new stuff and new movies. And since Stanley Kubrick died I really don't see anyone taking his place in the arts either. That's why I did this thread because there was just so much stuff done in the 60s and 70s I still think is better than most anything else available. My opinion to which I'm entitled

The thing I've noticed is that, no matter if something made nowadays is good (or even REALLY good), there isn't the impact that things had in the past. That goes for movies, TV shows, etc. Things in the past had an impact that have lasted decades, whereas nowadays, even when something reaches the top, it's here today/forgotten tomorrow. Even though nowadays, there are bigger and "better" FX/technologies, more efforts to outdo everything else. Much simpler stuff in the past made much more lasting impressions.

Jim

[Mad Mac]

In the bad old days, there were only three networks and no DVR. It was live and everyone may have been in separate living rooms but even so for most it was a shared experience, the topic of conversation the next day. Now, we have hundreds of channels and thousands of films. A person has to get on social media to discuss Game of Thrones.

[JD Spydo]

In the bad old days, there were only three networks and no DVR. It was live and everyone may have been in separate living rooms but even so for most it was a shared experience, the topic of conversation the next day. Now, we have hundreds of channels and thousands of films. A person has to get on social media to discuss Game of Thrones.

Well "Mad Mac" you are so right that there was a completely different set of dynamics at play back in the 60s/70s era. But still you would think that anyone that would accomplish anything noteworthy or monumental would gain some notoriety>> but there would have to be some talent to warrant that notoriety too. I maintain that there just isn't the dedication or overall character now a days with the actors and actresses that there was during that 60s/70s time slot.

And you are so right that there is such a wide array of selections and a much more huge selection of media events in this present time than there was back in the 60s/70s. But I still maintain that the quality and dedication put forth back then out vastly out ranked what we see today IMO. Like for instance who could name off all the cast in some nominal sitcom like "3rd Rock From The Sun"?>> I doubt anyone would even care enough to. But I bet a lot of people could name off virtually all of the cast in the Beverly Hillbillies or Star Trek or Get Smart or the original version of "I Spy".

The stuff back then was way more iconic and the fans could literally relate to the actors of that era. Which is why there will never be another Twilight Zone or Outer Limits or Alfred Hitchcock Presents. And the reruns of those 60s/70s era shows are still high in demand. We have 2 local stations here in KC that do nothing but reruns from that era. But your point is still well taken and there were a lot of different dynamics at play in that era.

And who will remember any of these present day sitcoms or other currently popular shows 20 years from now?? I doubt anyone will

[Frozenspyder]

Does anyone remember the 60's sci-fi/horror movie Planet of the Vampires?

[Ankerson]

In the bad old days, there were only three networks and no DVR. It was live and everyone may have been in separate living rooms but even so for most it was a shared experience, the topic of conversation the next day. Now, we have hundreds of channels and thousands of films. A person has to get on social media to discuss Game of Thrones.

Well "Mad Mac" you are so right that there was a completely different set of dynamics at play back in the 60s/70s era. But still you would think that anyone that would accomplish anything noteworthy or monumental would gain some notoriety>> but there would have to be some talent to warrant that notoriety too. I maintain that there just isn't the dedication or overall character now a days with the actors and actresses that there was during that 60s/70s time slot.

And you are so right that there is such a wide array of selections and a much more huge selection of media events in this present time than there was back in the 60s/70s. But I still maintain that the quality and dedication put forth back then out vastly out ranked what we see today IMO. Like for instance who could name off all the cast in some nominal sitcom like "3rd Rock From The Sun"?>> I doubt anyone would even care enough to. But I bet a lot of people could name off virtually all of the cast in the Beverly Hillbillies or Star Trek or Get Smart or the original version of "I Spy".

The stuff back then was way more iconic and the fans could literally relate to the actors of that era. Which is why there will never be another Twilight Zone or Outer Limits or Alfred Hitchcock Presents. And the reruns of those 60s/70s era shows are still high in demand. We have 2 local stations here in KC that do nothing but reruns from that era. But your point is still well taken and there were a lot of different dynamics at play in that era.

And who will remember any of these present day sitcoms or other currently popular shows 20 years from now?? I doubt anyone will

A lot of the actors and actresses' back then were multi-talented, a lot of them could actually act, sing and dance. They hand to be able to be much more adaptable back in the day.

Most of the stuff on TV and the newer movies are crap IMO.

[James Y]

A lot of the actors and actresses' back then were multi-talented, a lot of them could actually act, sing and dance. They hand to be able to be much more adaptable back in the day.

Most of the stuff on TV and the newer movies are crap IMO.

The vast majority of the actors and actresses of that era came from theatrical (stage) backgrounds. That required most of them to be "triple threats".

That said, there are good actors today who are also triple threats. Also, the acting styles of today tend towards a more "natural" style for TV dramas and movies (with the exception of sitcoms and comedy movies). The problem I see nowadays is a lack of originality of most of the new stuff. Much of TV and movies today is just rehashing (or attempting to rehash) classics from the past. And failing at it.

People nowadays like to say, "That was a good movie (or TV show) for its time." When in fact, the movie or show they're talking about is usually better than virtually anything now. All the flash and advanced CGI (or in the case of current pop music acts, lighting, sets and fancy choreographed dance numbers) are often attempts to cover up for lesser artistic talent and creativity.

There is still good stuff that comes out, but IMO it's rare.

Jim

[Ankerson]

A lot of the actors and actresses' back then were multi-talented, a lot of them could actually act, sing and dance. They hand to be able to be much more adaptable back in the day.

Most of the stuff on TV and the newer movies are crap IMO.

The vast majority of the actors and actresses of that era came from theatrical (stage) backgrounds. That required most of them to be "triple threats".

That said, there are good actors today who are also triple threats. Also, the acting styles of today tend towards a more "natural" style for TV dramas and movies (with the exception of sitcoms and comedy movies). The problem I see nowadays is a lack of originality of most of the new stuff. Much of TV and movies today is just rehashing (or attempting to rehash) classics from the past. And failing at it.

People nowadays like to say, "That was a good movie (or TV show) for its time." When in fact, the movie or show they're talking about is usually better than virtually anything now. All the flash and advanced CGI (or in the case of current pop music acts, lighting, sets and fancy choreographed dance numbers) are often attempts to cover up for lesser artistic talent and creativity.

There is still good stuff that comes out, but IMO it's rare.

Jim

That would be VERY few today for sure.

All they do is read their lines off the cards and you can see it a lot of times that's what they are doing. :rolleyes:

I don't even know how a lot of them are even working as actors at all.

Also remember there were more than a few shows that were aired live back in the day. That's scripted good shows, not the pathetic garbage reality TV crap that's on today.

[James Y]

A lot of the actors and actresses' back then were multi-talented, a lot of them could actually act, sing and dance. They hand to be able to be much more adaptable back in the day.

Most of the stuff on TV and the newer movies are crap IMO.

The vast majority of the actors and actresses of that era came from theatrical (stage) backgrounds. That required most of them to be "triple threats".

That said, there are good actors today who are also triple threats. Also, the acting styles of today tend towards a more "natural" style for TV dramas and movies (with the exception of sitcoms and comedy movies). The problem I see nowadays is a lack of originality of most of the new stuff. Much of TV and movies today is just rehashing (or attempting to rehash) classics from the past. And failing at it.

People nowadays like to say, "That was a good movie (or TV show) for its time." When in fact, the movie or show they're talking about is usually better than virtually anything now. All the flash and advanced CGI (or in the case of current pop music acts, lighting, sets and fancy choreographed dance numbers) are often attempts to cover up for lesser artistic talent and creativity.

There is still good stuff that comes out, but IMO it's rare.

Jim

That would be VERY few today for sure.

All they do is read their lines off the cards and you can see it a lot of times that's what they are doing. :rolleyes:

I don't even know how a lot of them are even working as actors at all.

Also remember there were more than a few shows that were aired live back in the day. That's scripted good shows, not the pathetic garbage reality TV crap that's on today.

And so-called 'reality TV' is actually 'unreality TV'. Poorly scripted, boring nonsense, starring underwear models. Back in the day, the word celebrity used to mean something. I didn't like all celebrities back then (some I still dislike), but nowadays they're a dime a dozen. 'Celebrity' means nothing today. Someone could star in a reality TV series about toilet cleaners and be called a celebrity. Or post videos of yourself on YouTube and become a 'superstar' (like Justin Bieber?). Or being famous for being famous (Kardashians).

Jim

[Ankerson]

A lot of the actors and actresses' back then were multi-talented, a lot of them could actually act, sing and dance. They hand to be able to be much more adaptable back in the day.

Most of the stuff on TV and the newer movies are crap IMO.

The vast majority of the actors and actresses of that era came from theatrical (stage) backgrounds. That required most of them to be "triple threats".

That said, there are good actors today who are also triple threats. Also, the acting styles of today tend towards a more "natural" style for TV dramas and movies (with the exception of sitcoms and comedy movies). The problem I see nowadays is a lack of originality of most of the new stuff. Much of TV and movies today is just rehashing (or attempting to rehash) classics from the past. And failing at it.

People nowadays like to say, "That was a good movie (or TV show) for its time." When in fact, the movie or show they're talking about is usually better than virtually anything now. All the flash and advanced CGI (or in the case of current pop music acts, lighting, sets and fancy choreographed dance numbers) are often attempts to cover up for lesser artistic talent and creativity.

There is still good stuff that comes out, but IMO it's rare.

Jim

That would be VERY few today for sure.

All they do is read their lines off the cards and you can see it a lot of times that's what they are doing. :rolleyes:

I don't even know how a lot of them are even working as actors at all.

Also remember there were more than a few shows that were aired live back in the day. That's scripted good shows, not the pathetic garbage reality TV crap that's on today.

And so-called 'reality TV' is actually 'unreality TV'. Poorly scripted, boring nonsense, starring underwear models. Back in the day, the word celebrity used to mean something. I didn't like all celebrities back then (some I still dislike), but nowadays they're a dime a dozen. 'Celebrity' means nothing today. Someone could star in a reality TV series about toilet cleaners and be called a celebrity. Or post videos of yourself on YouTube and become a 'superstar' (like Justin Bieber?). Or being famous for being famous (Kardashians).

Jim

Don't get me started on YT..... I could go on for days.... :eek: :rolleyes:

[James Y]

https://youtu.be/6ifS2nP53Zs

Jim

[JD Spydo]

I still think that the "Outer Limits" in some respects not only competed with the "Twilight Zone" but there were a few episodes that were even better. There were so many great TV Shows from the 50s-60s era that it's easy to see how some of them could be completely overlooked like the "Outer Limits" obviously were.

I've often wondered why "westerns" died off the way they did :confused: ? Because back in those days every network had it's own top notch "western" show. Shows like Gunsmoke, Wagon Train, Rawhide ( Clint Eastwood fame), and even a really funny one like Laredo. But in today's politically correct climate they might be stepping on toes But I really enjoyed a lot of the westerns back in the day. Probably my all time favorite was "The Wild, Wild West" with Robert Conrad.

[James Y]

I still think that the "Outer Limits" in some respects not only competed with the "Twilight Zone" but there were a few episodes that were even better. There were so many great TV Shows from the 50s-60s era that it's easy to see how some of them could be completely overlooked like the "Outer Limits" obviously were.

I've often wondered why "westerns" died off the way they did :confused: ? Because back in those days every network had it's own top notch "western" show. Shows like Gunsmoke, Wagon Train, Rawhide ( Clint Eastwood fame), and even a really funny one like Laredo. But in today's politically correct climate they might be stepping on toes But I really enjoyed a lot of the westerns back in the day. Probably my all time favorite was "The Wild, Wild West" with Robert Conrad.

Joe,

I’m certain that TV westerns simply went out of style with most viewers. Especially by the late ‘60s/early ‘70s. If viewership hadn’t dropped off, I’m sure the networks would have kept them going longer. Also, with so many western shows, the market probably became over-saturated. It’s the same with spaghetti western movies in Italy/Spain (I say Spain because most of the Italian westerns were actually filmed in Spain). Literally hundreds of them were made, then sometime in the ‘70s they just stopped making them. They stopped being profitable.

It’s the same with the kung fu/martial arts genre in Hong Kong and Taiwan. At the height of their popularity in the ‘70s, over 300 a year were produced in Taiwan alone. There were also lots of kung fu and sword hero TV serials. After the early ‘90s, zero were produced in Taiwan, and that still holds true. They went out of style. Young people in Taiwan and Hong Kong now mostly think of kung fu movies as “stuff my dad or grandpa used to watch.” Only a small few are still made in Hong Kong and China, with bigger budgets, but with the same few actors, unlike in the genre’s heyday, when there was such a variety of movies and performers. And the sense of fun in the ones nowadays is mostly gone. The big thing in many Asian countries today, especially in S. Korea, Japan, China, etc., is young “pop idols” doing synchronized dancing.

My favorite TV western was also The Wild, Wild West, because of all the gadgets. Then my second-favorite might have been High Chaparral. But overall, I don’t think I was a big fan of TV westerns as a kid. My dad was really the one who watched them, though I remember it was my brother and I who watched Wild, Wild West.

Jim

[JD Spydo]

I still think that the "Outer Limits" in some respects not only competed with the "Twilight Zone" but there were a few episodes that were even better. There were so many great TV Shows from the 50s-60s era that it's easy to see how some of them could be completely overlooked like the "Outer Limits" obviously were.

I've often wondered why "westerns" died off the way they did :confused: ? Because back in those days every network had it's own top notch "western" show. Shows like Gunsmoke, Wagon Train, Rawhide ( Clint Eastwood fame), and even a really funny one like Laredo. But in today's politically correct climate they might be stepping on toes But I really enjoyed a lot of the westerns back in the day. Probably my all time favorite was "The Wild, Wild West" with Robert Conrad.

My favorite TV western was also The Wild, Wild West, because of all the gadgets. Then my second-favorite might have been High Chaparral. But overall, I don’t think I was a big fan of TV westerns as a kid. My dad was really the one who watched them, though I remember it was my brother and I who watched Wild, Wild West.

The "Wild, Wild West" was truly so far ahead of it's time that I have no other Western to compare it with. And Robert Conrad and Ross Martin were two great actors and I doubt that their work could be duplicated today. The famous villain in that show was Dr. Miguelito Loveless played by the midget actor Michael Dunn who also did work with the original Star Trek and a few others>> but he was great in that show Wild Wild West.

I don't think that Robert Conrad did another show that was as good as that one was IMO. We still get the reruns here in the KC area on the ME TV Channel and I do get to watch it occasionally. The showed depicted two Secret Service Agents during the President Grant era. There was no other show like it and I doubt if there ever will be either. It would be a great show to make a modern movie of IMO.